Truth Magazine

By Donnie V. Rader

The gospel of Jesus Christ is a redemptive system. By that we mean that it is a system whereby man is redeemed from his sins. In contrast, some of the preaching we hear today, even among us, has robbed the gospel of its redemptive power.

The Need For Redemption

Man stands in need of being redeemed because of his sin. All have sinned (Rom. 3:23; 1 John 5:19). Sin (which is a violation of God’s law) has consequences like the violation of any other law.

Sin causes one to die spiritually. That means man is spiritually separated from his God.

Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death (Jas. 1:15).

But your iniquities have separated you from your God; And your sins have hidden [His] face from you,  So that He will not hear (Isa. 59:2).

For the wages of sin [is] death . . . (Rom. 6:23).

Since our sin separates us from God, we stand in need of being re- deemed.

We Are Redeemed by the Blood of Christ

Even a casual reading of the Old Testament will reveal that God has always demanded a blood sacrifice to atone for sin.

The blood of animals could not remove sin (Heb. 10:4). However, the blood of the sinless Son of God would be the perfect sacrifice (Heb. 8 and 10).

Why did Christ have to die?

And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission (Heb. 9:22). He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself (Heb. 9:26).

That was the message that was preached as the apostles went forth preaching the word. They told of the Christ and how man could be saved through him (cf. Acts 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 13ff).

Preaching That Guts The Gospel of Redemption

Any preaching that doesn’t appeal to the gospel message as the message that redeems man from his sin, has gutted the gospel of its real power. Much of the preaching in the denominational world is a social message. Some of it sounds more political and patriotic than biblical. Even among us (both the “liberals” and yes, even the “conservatives”) there is preaching being done that addresses more social needs than spiritual.

I recognize that the Bible talks about aging and depression and human relationships. However, when our appeal in reaching out to the world is to help them with this difficulty in handling growing old or in having brighter days, then we have missed the redemptive system of the gospel.

The gospel of Jesus Christ is a redemptive message. Let’s preach it. Let’s not be ashamed of it. Let’s not lose sight of what is it and our need for it.

By Randy Blackaby 

By Elmer Moore 

Proposition: The Scriptures teach that the cup (drinking vessel) in the communion represents the new Covenant. 

I will try to wade through all of the reckless and loosely connected statements that brother Hawkins wrote. If you have difficulty in trying to understand what he wrote, join the crowd. He reminds us of my obligation in the negative and my failure to measure up to that obligation. The negative is to examine proof offered by the affirmative (of which I find very little) and has the right to present rebuttal arguments. This I believe I have done. You be the judge. 

The problem with the affirmative is that he admits that in the texts describing the institution of the Lord’s supper figurative language is used. He even admits that you have both a metaphor and metonymy. Then he ignores the basic rules governing them in his explanation of the texts under discussion. This is the same mistake that men make in the study of parables and symbols, making literal that which is symbolic. He charged me with ignoring what he wrote about these figures. He wrote, “He didn’t say a word against it.” I agreed with his basic argument, “that any rule about the phraseology will equally apply to Matthew 26:28.” I wrote, “Certainly! There is no question about the phraseology; the question is what was he teaching.” This rule our brother will not apply. You will note that I presented an illustration of his blunder. I pointed out that in Matthew 26:26 he argued that the word “this” refers back to the bread. He then argues that the word “this” in Matthew 26:28, the same context, points forward to fruit of the vine. Thus, he has the word “this” referring back to bread and forward to fruit of the vine. You see this even if he doesn’t. To follow his rule the word “this” in Matthew 26:28 must refer back to “cup.” Thus, according, to his rule Jesus is saying that the “cup” (container) is (represents) his blood. Yet brother Hawkins is arguing that the “cup” (container) is (represents) his new covenant and in so doing has Matthew and Luke in contradiction of one another. This is the logical consequence of his argument. I presented this in article two and what did brother Hawkins say about it? He wrote “this is a classic example of his sly misrepresentations.” Jesus used both a metaphor (one thing named to suggest another) and metonymy (the change of one noun for another related noun) as in the “cup” for its “contents.” 

While I am discussing these figures let me also, once again, address what he said about Bullinger and Thayer. He blatantly misrepresents these men. He wrote, “Thayer on page 15 said the cup represents the new covenant.” Brethren look at what Thayer said. Thayer is discussing the subject of blood and he writes, “The blood by the shedding of which the covenant should be ratified, Matthew 26:28; Mark 14:24 or has been ratified . . . add, 1 Corinthians 11:25; Luke 22:20 in both which the meaning is, ‘this cup containing wine, an emblem of blood, is rendered by the shedding of my blood an emblem of the new covenant.” Brethren this is reckless- ness on the part of brother Hawkins. Thayer states the same thing here that he does on page 533 where he writes, “By metonymy of the container for the contained, the contents of the cup, what is offered to be drunk.” 

Our brother then writes, “Bullinger said the nouns in a metaphor must both be mentioned and are to be taken literally.” Bullinger also writes on page 739, “The whole figure, in a metaphor, lies, as we have said, in the verb substantive ‘is’ and not in either of the two nouns.” He also wrote, “so in the very words that follow ‘this is’ (i.e., represents or signifies) my body we have an undoubted metaphor.” “He took the cup . . . saying this IS my blood!” Here, thus, we have a pair of metaphors. In the former one, ‘this’ refers to ‘bread’ and it is claimed that IS means changed into the ‘body’ of Christ. In the latter, ‘this’ refers to ‘the cup’ but it is not claimed that the cup is changed into ‘blood.’” 

Bullinger does not support the claim of the affirmative, quite the contrary. Bullinger writes that “this” refers to the cup. Brother Hawkins continues to misrepresent these scholars. 

“In Remembrance” 

He writes that “in remembrance” is W.E. Vine’s opinion. No, Jesus said “this do in remembrance of me.” I simply gave Vine’s definition of the word “remembrance.” The word means “affectionately calling that person to mind.” The bread representing his body and the fruit of the vine representing his blood do precisely this. The literal con- tainer does not. Brother Hawkins is arguing for the “literal container” but bases his argument on what the Bible teaches about the “new covenant” which is not an issue. I agree that there is something that reminds us of what Jesus did, but it is not the “literal container” of the Lord’s Supper. Our brother argues that Jesus said something represented the new covenant and has conveniently ignored what Jesus said about it. He said “new covenant in my blood.” We are dealing with figurative language. What did this mean? What ratified the new covenant? Was it a literal container or the blood of Jesus? A container was named to suggest its contents. The contents was the fruit of the vine. What did the fruit of the vine represent? It represented the blood of Jesus. What did the blood of Christ do? The shedding of his blood ratified the new covenant and made possible the forgiveness of sins. Brother Hawkins asked the question why did Jesus refer to the container at all? Jesus named the container to suggest what was in it. His audience under- stood his language. Brethren the two statements, “the new covenant in my blood” (Luke 22:20) and “my blood of the covenant” (Matt. 26:28) are teaching the same thing. 

The Order of Record 

Our brother knows what I wrote concerning the order of record. He put it in quotations in this article. Yet in his second article he falsely charged me. I now know he knew better. He then tries to get out of trouble by charging me with “relocating words in a sentence.” I showed that the two passages, Matthew 26:28 and Luke 22:20, taught the same thing but not in the same order (see previous article). I wrote, “These passages are not teaching two distinct truths, as the affirmative states, they are affirming the same truth.” Remember that these writers are describing the exact same event that took place on the night of the betrayal. Thus, that which they relate to us must be consistent. Matthew was present at that event and knew exactly what the Lord was saying and exactly what took place. Neither Mark nor Luke were present but, being guided by the Holy Spirit, that which they wrote must agree with what Matthew wrote about the matter. I didn’t cite Romans 10:9 to argue that it was like Luke 22:20. I cited the passage only to show that “the order of record is not always the order of occurrence.” Brother Hawkins built a straw man to attack and ignored my argument. 

His “Waterloo” 

In this section brother Hawkins tells you that I contended that the word “it” metonymically refers to contents. Is he denying this? He then points out that the word “it” is not in Luke 22:20. Is he arguing that this is not the same cup in verse 20 as the cup referred to in verse 17? How many containers does he think were there? Note also that he is making some progress. He is affirming “literal container” represents the new covenant. Now he writes “this cup (filled with the fruit of vine) is the new covenant.” Thus, he virtually admits what I have been arguing that “the container is named for its contents, and in whatever sense the ‘cup’ is the new covenant, it is talking about contents and not the container.” He has denied his own proposition. If the container becomes significant only after it is filled with “wine” then we must ask ourselves “what made it significant?” After the “wine” is drank, is the container still significant? What can be done with the container other than wash it and put it back on the shelf or throw it away if it is of the throw-away type? These questions are not trivial because there is the problem of showing when the container becomes “holy” and when it ceases to be “holy.” Not so with the “wine” or the “bread.” They become of significance, to each individual, during the process and completion of the act of imbibing of each, respectively, and then only if it is properly done (1 Cor. 11:20-29). 

1 Corinthians 11:27 

The affirmative attempts to answer my argument on two elements in 1 Corinthians 11:27. He totally ignores my argument and writes about the covenant and its importance, which is not an issue. My argument was based on what the passage states about the Lord’s supper. There are two actions identified. They were to eat the bread and drink the cup. Paul declares “whosoever shall eat the bread and drink the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.” My argument still stands. There are only two elements of significance. Is it possible that Paul would have ignored the significance of the container if it was of importance. He was teaching the Corinthians the proper manner of taking of the bread and the fruit of the vine. That which he received of the Lord is that which he taught. 

Brother Hawkins tries to prejudice the reader by refer ring to “Brother Moore’s sectarian argument.” I guess he thought that you would not realize that he did not touch top, side, or bottom of my argument. In this same connection he cites Acts 2:42 and 20:7 where the passages refer to the “breaking of bread” and wants to know if this is only one element of significance. No brother Hawkins the phrase “breaking of bread” sometimes referred to a common meal and sometimes referred to the Lord’s supper. In these passages the Lord’s supper is suggested in an often used figure of speech, synecdoche, where a part is named and the whole is intended. The part of the Lord’s supper implied, of course, is the eating of the bread. Did you think that this only meant that they just ate the bread and did not drink the cup? 

NASV 

Brother Hawkins takes it upon himself to challenge the translators of the NASV. He writes that they “inaccurately translated” Luke 22:20 but gives no authoritative evidence of why he believes this to be true. He reminds me of the Baptists who deny the inspiration of Mark 16:9-20. They do it because they know that it repudiates their doctrine. Our brother challenges the NASV for the same reason. He knows that it utterly destroys his contention. Brother Hawkins writes that “poured out modifies blood.” This does not help him in the least. There is no issue about what was poured out, it was the blood of Christ. What represented that blood is the question? In Matthew 26:27-28 Jesus took a “cup” and said “drink ye all of it (cup); for this (cup) is my blood.” Thus, it was the cup (contents) representing his blood that was poured out. The NASV presents the truth on this passage in Luke 22:20. I would also remind the reader that Bullinger agrees that the word “this” in the above passage refers to the “cup.” 

Conclusion 

We must handle aright the word of truth. In so doing one must exercise caution in examining texts that involve figurative language. When Jesus said “go tell Herod that fox. . . .” I know what he said, but I must try and understand what he meant. Brother Hawkins emphasized what Jesus said but failed to understand what he meant. This can be a fatal mistake when dealing with figurative language. 

My brethren there are two elements of significance in the Lord’s memorial supper. This is taught in 1 Corinthians 10:16. “The cup of blessing which we bless is it not (it is, em) a communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break is it not (it is, em) a communion of the body of Christ.”Also in 1 Corinthians 11:27, we are directed to “Eat the bread and drink the cup.” If we do so in an unworthy manner we become guilty of the “body” and “blood” of the Lord. The Lord’s supper is a memorial. Whatever is of significance must “affectionately call the person (Jesus) to mind.” The bread representing his body and the cup representing his blood do precisely this; the container does not. It is my hope that the reader will realize the fallacy in making the physical container an element of significance in the memorial feast. There is no way for the partaker to relate to the container except that it is necessary to contain that which is of significance, the fruit of the vine that rep- resents his blood that was shed for the new testament and for the remission of our sins. It is important that we are continually reminded of this great sacrifice that was made by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Amen. 

I thank both the editors of Old Paths Advocate and Truth Magazine for allowing me space to set forth what I believe about the Lord’s supper.

By Douglas T. Hawkins 

Proposition: The Scriptures teach that the cup (drinking vessel) in the communion represents the New Covenant. 

When a man is unable to overthrow the truths of an argument by pointing out the fallacy of what has been stated, he must resort to tactics that divert the audience’s attention away from the issues of the discussion. This is precisely what brother Moore has done in his opening paragraph and with the other unrelated matters he has introduced in his second negative. I guess now would be as good a time as any to give him (with sympathy) #13 to add to his lengthy grocery list of complaints. Brother Moore has clearly evaded his responsibility in this discussion as the negative. A great part of my second affirmative dealt with metaphors and metonymy in answer to his objections that I ignored these figures of speech. In responding, he didn’t say a word against it. Why not? Either he plainly could not answer what I have written or else he purposely is waiting until his last article to say something about it so I will not have the chance to respond to him. I need to remind him that it’s his job to take up my arguments and not vice versa. Also, if brother Moore seriously wants to confuse my attack of his error with a personal attack of his character, then I feel terribly sorry for him. Despite brother Moore’s allegation that “(I) ignored (his) rebuttal arguments,” I want to pick up where I left off and quickly cover the rest of the relevant material that I did not have the space to address the last time. Then I’ll note his second article. 

“In Remembrance” 

Brother Moore contends that the proposition is untrue because it does not serve to meet W.E. Vine’s opinion of “affectionately calling that person to mind.” Brother Moore’s conclusion is that the bread is a fair representation of Christ’s body and that the fruit of the vine fairly represents Christ’s blood, but he can’t see how a “container” would serve the purpose of calling someone to mind. Let’s help him. Brother Moore, Jesus is the mediator of the new covenant (Heb. 7:22; 8:6). To have a symbol of that covenant is to have something that reminds us of what he accomplished, the ratification of this new and better covenant. To remember what Christ accomplished is to remember him. Brother Moore, in his first article, also said that a number of things are stated in connection with the shedding of Christ’s blood (i.e., the remission of sins, the purchasing of the church, etc.). Yes, but Christ didn’t say anything represented the remission of sins or that anything symbolized the church. What he did say though is that something represents the new covenant. What is it? Jesus said, “This cup is the new covenant” (Luke 22:20). Of the cup that Christ took in his hand, he said, “This cup” represents the new covenant. Elmer denies it, but the Lord still said it. 

“Only Two Elements” 

Brother Moore also quoted 1 Corinthians 10:16 and stated that there are only two elements of significance mentioned in the communion, the body and the blood. In addition, in the questions of his last article, he pointed out that we would only be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord if we partook unworthily (1 Cor. 11:27) and that nothing is said “of the covenant” to indicate a third element in the communion. First, the reason is because it is established in several other places in the Scriptures that the blood of Christ is the “blood of the new covenant”; therefore, it does not need to be stated again. Brother Moore I’m embarrassed for you. I thought you knew that. You see friend, Brother Moore’s sectarian argument proves nothing. (The sectarian will argue that Jesus, in the latter half of Mark 16:16, didn’t say “and is not baptized” attempting to prove that baptism is unessential to salvation. That must be where brother Moore learned his argument. I think I can help him though.) (Brother Moore, I’ll be very glad to correspond with you when this is over.) Secondly, to enjoy the communion of the blood of Christ is also to share in the fellowship of the new covenant, but conversely, to splash carelessly through the blood of Christ is to desecrate that one ratified agreement. Thirdly, so closely connected are the blood and the new covenant (as I pointed out in my first affirmative) that to state one would be to imply the integral relationship of the other. Fourthly, Paul in 1 Corinthians 10:16 and 11:27 didn’t assign representative significance to any element of the communion. The Lord had already done that. Jesus said regarding the cup that he took, “This cup is the new covenant” (Luke 22:20), giving it just as much importance in the Lord’s supper as the bread and the fruit of the vine. Basically, brother Moore’s objection comes down to this: Paul only mentioned the body and the blood and said nothing of the covenant in 1 Corinthians 10:16 and 11:27. Therefore, he concludes that there are only two significant elements in the communion. Brother Moore, where in Acts 20:7 or 2:42 when discussing the breaking of bread does it say anything about drinking the fruit of the vine? Do these verses teach that there is only one significant element in the communion? 

“The NASV”

In quoting this particular translation of Luke 22:20, brother Moore has sought to prove that Luke teaches the “cup is the blood.” However, this particular version inaccurately translates the passage. The phrase “which is poured out for you” doesn’t modify “cup” as the NASV has rendered it. Rather, the phrase modifies blood. The New King James Version says in Luke 22:20 “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.” Another translation says, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.” In these other translations the sense is not that the cup was poured out, but that the blood was poured out or shed for us, which is vastly different from the NASV. Which translation is right? Let’s ask ourselves, what was shed or poured out for us? A cup? Fruit of the vine? Blood? Obviously, it was blood. To translate the passage as “This cup, which is poured out for you” is to say that Christ poured out a cup or shed fruit of the vine for us. Is that what you believe brother Moore? Christ didn’t shed a cup nor did he shed fruit of the vine. Secondly, if brother Moore’s reasoning is right, the pas- sage means the blood is (represents) the new covenant. It would not mean that the cup is (represents) the blood as he has concluded. The passage in the NASV says, “This cup (symbol of blood according to E.M.) which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.” Hence, the blood is (represents) the new covenant. That is completely absurd. The blood was shed to ratify the covenant, but it is not a symbol of that covenant. The blood and the covenant are two separate things. Brother Moore’s main problem is that he cannot see that the statement “This . . . is the new covenant” means that something symbolizes the new covenant. He can see that the statement “This is my blood” means that something represents the blood, but he can’t see the truth that something represents the new covenant. Will you base your faith upon this faulty translation? Brother Moore has. 

 “The Order of Record” 

Brother Moore has stated a number of times (as innumerable as Abraham’s descendants I believe) throughout this exchange that “the order of record is not always the order of occurrence.” In the preceding article, he said that I ought to be ashamed for accusing him of arbitrarily relocating words within a sentence. Let’s look at his application of Luke 22:20 in light of his example in Romans 10:9 because they are nothing alike. Maybe then we can determine where the shame rightfully belongs. In Romans 10:9, we all know that belief precedes a confession of our faith. Notice, that “confessing with our mouth the Lord Jesus and believing in our hearts that God raised him from the dead” are two finished and complete thoughts that are understood in their proper sequence. However, this example is a far cry from saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood” means that the cup (contents) represents the new covenant (actually the blood) because the order of record is not al- ways the order of occurrence. To say that faith naturally precedes our confession doesn’t alter the truth of either statement, but to say that “This cup is the new covenant,” teaches that the contents represent the blood changes the thought altogether. Brother Moore, is the order of record ever the order of occurrence? If so, how shall we know when it is? (Oh yeah, I forgot. You will correspond with me.) Brethren, if the statement “this is my body” means that something represents the body, and the statement “this is my blood” means that something represents the blood, then why, oh why, pray tell does the statement “This . . . is the new covenant” not mean that something represents the new covenant? I believe I should say, “Shame on you” brother Moore. These statements are not the same as you have said, and yes, you have arbitrarily changed the words within the sentence of Luke 22:20. Furthermore, I have comparatively shown the difference in the statements: “This cup (filled with fruit of vine) is the new covenant in my blood” and “this (the fruit of vine in the cup) is my blood of the new covenant” in my first two affirmatives. Despite the insinuation that you, the reader, are too doltish to understand such a “conglomerated process,” we clearly see that these statements affirm two different, yet complimentary, truths. (Perhaps brother Moore can correspond with you after he’s finished with me.) 

“My Waterloo” 

Much to my chagrin, my contention that the literal container represents the new covenant has been “totally devastated” because: (1) Brother Moore has turned my illustration of the boiling kettle against me. (2) Thayer and Bullinger actually agree with brother Moore. (3) I have contradictingly said the literal container represents both the blood and the new covenant. “It” in Luke 22:17 — brother Moore contends that since the pronoun “it” in Luke 22:17 is used to refer metonymically to the contents of the cup that I’m wrong in what I’ve contended for. The only problem is that it is in Luke 22:20 (not v. 17) that Jesus said, “This cup is the new covenant.” The demonstrative pronoun “this” shows that Christ was referring to “the cup” that he had just taken. If it is solely the contents that are considered as brother Moore has insisted, why did Jesus say “this cup”? The Lord just as easily could have said this fruit of the vine to indicate only the contents. Why did Christ refer to the container at all? Furthermore, if it’s the contents that represent the blood why did Jesus say, “This . . . is the new covenant in my blood,” meaning that this is the agreement ratified by my blood? In Matthew and Mark Jesus said, “This is my blood,” but according to Luke the Lord also said, “This . . . is the new covenant.” If the Lord wanted something to symbolize the ratified new covenant, what language would he have had to use? Clearly, it re- quires the container and its contents together to represent both the new covenant and the blood of Christ. Jesus said, “This cup (filled with fruit of vine) is the new covenant in my blood.” It comes down to this: do you believe the Lord meant what he said? 

Thayer and Bullinger — Brother Moore says that these scholars “establish precisely what [he has] been arguing, that the container is named for its contents.” Of all the assumptive, specious, and tenuous things I’ve ever read, this tops them all. Brother Moore you need to reread what these men have written because they changed their minds. They don’t agree with you after all. In fact, Thayer on page 15 said the cup represents the new covenant and the wine represents the blood. Bullinger said the nouns in a metaphor must both be mentioned and are to be taken absolutely literally. In other words, literal fruit of the vine represents the literal blood of Christ and a literal cup represents the literal covenant. (Brother Moore’s desultory remarks about the Catholics are altogether irrelevant.) Why didn’t you deal with Thayer and Bullinger? You plainly ignored these points, Brother Moore. 

Contradictions — Time and again brother Moore has said that I have made Luke contradict Matthew and Mark by saying that the container represents both the blood and the new covenant. I’ve said no such thing. What I have said speaks for itself. This is just another classic example of brother Moore’s sly misrepresentations. I’ve said the fruit of the vine symbolizes the blood and the cup represents the new covenant. I’ve noted that these two elements must be together before anything is emblemized in the communion (see the end of my first affirmative). Now then, I don’t have to distort what Elmer has written to show his discrepancy. Brother Moore has continuously said: The cup (contents — fruit of vine) is the blood and the cup (contents) is the new covenant. Can’t you see brother Moore that your reasoning has Luke contradicting Matthew and Mark? The reader and I can. It’s not Napoleon Hawkins who has met his Waterloo. It’s Elmer Bonaparte. Finally, as to your question, there is no place in Luke or 1 Corinthians where the Bible teaches the fruit of vine represents the blood. That teaching is found in Matthew 26:28 and Mark 14:24. Let me ask you, where in Acts 2:38 is faith taught? Does the fact that it is not void the role of repentance in the plan of salvation? 

Conclusion 

Brethren, the issue boils down to this: do you accept what the Lord said? Jesus didn’t say “this cup is my blood,” nor did he say “this fruit of the vine is the new covenant.” What the Lord could have said, he didn’t. The Lord said, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood.” Elmer hasn’t been debating me. He’s been debating the Lord. This isn’t about what Doug Hawkins said. This is about what the Lord said and whether or not the Lord meant exactly what he did say. Why does brother Moore take exception to the Lord’s statement? The reason is because his back is against the wall to uphold the man-made arrangement of using “individual cups.” Brother Moore noted the consequence of making a law where God has not. Let me add to that. It’s as equally dangerous to disobey a law that God has made. In light of the evidence, I must call upon you brethren who use individual cups to abandon the practice and restore the ancient order of worship. Please consider these things prayerfully. A word of thanks to brethren Mike Willis, editor of Truth Magazine, and Don King, editor of Old Paths Advocate, for printing this exchange. Brother Elmer Moore, thank you for your part and for the hours that you spent prepar- ing your articles to make this discussion possible. And a word of thanks to all of my preaching brethren who spent time in conversation with me about this discussion. Finally, thanks to you, the reader, for the time you’ve invested in reading this discussion. May God bless this effort. Jesus said, “This cup is the new covenant.”